REPUBIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 10
QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-

Criminal Case No. 12345

For: Less Serious Physical
Injuries under Art. 265 of
the Revised Penal Code

JOSEPH RUSSEL INGCO,

Accused-Appellant.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
MEMORANDUM ON APPEAL
(FOR THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT)
ACCUSED-APPELLANT JOSEPH RUSSEL INGCO, by
counsel, and to this Honorable Court, most respectfully
submits his Memorandum, in compliance with the Order of
this Honorable Court, dated 11 January 2015, and states,
THAT:
I.
PREFATORY STATEMENT
An accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Until the
guilt of the accused is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is
deemed innocent in the eyes of the law. This has been a long-standing
philosophy in all criminal prosecutions. The instant case is one of the
instances wherein the court must remain steadfast in its duty to uphold such
time-honored philosophy, without which, the very foundation of justice will
be shaken and the fundamental rights of all persons to due process will be
reduced to mere lip service.

II.
PARTIES
2.1 Accused-Appellant Joseph Russel Ingco is of legal age,
Filipino and with residence at No. 44 Sitio Calumpang,
Barangay Bagumbayan, Pililia, Rizal.
III.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
3.1.
On January 7, 2015, accused-appellant was
charged with a felony of Less Serious Physical Injuries
(under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code) before
the Municipal Trial Court Branch 10 Quezon City in an
Information which reads:
That, on or about the 27th day of November 2014, in
Quezon City and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-names accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and employ personal violence upon the person
of one Jorbe Adriatico by then and there giving him
fistic blow on his face, thereby inflicting upon the latter
physical injuries which required medical attendance for
a period of ten (10) days or incapacitated him from the
performance of his customary labor for the same period
of time.
Contrary to law.
3.2.
On January 8, 2015, the accused was arraigned
and entered his plea of Not Guilty.
3.3.
On January 9, 2015 pre-trial was held and
thereafter the trial on the merits of the case ensued.
3.4.
On January 10, 2015, after both the prosecution
and defense rested their respective cases, the
Municipal Trial Court rendered its decision convicting
the accused of the crime charged. The dispositive
portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds
accused Joseph Russel Ingco guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Less Serious Physical Injures. He
is hereby sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of
three (3) months of arresto mayor.
SO ORDERED.
2

3.5.
On January 10, 2015, accused-appellant filed a
Notice of Appeal with the Municipal Trial Court.
Hence, this appeal before the Regional Trial Court.
IV.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
EVIDENCE FOR THE PROSECUTION
The prosecutions lone witness, Jorbe Adriatico, testified as
follows:
4.1.
On November 27, 2014, Jorbe Adriatco was an
MMDA officer on duty along Quezon Avenue corner
Araneta Avenue.
4.2.
On the same day, he saw a blue Maserati Ghibli
driven by Joseph Russel Ingco, accused in this case.
Jorbe saw Joseph commit a traffic violation when the
latter made an illegal left turn along Araneta Avenue to
get to Quezon Avenue.
4.3.
Upon seeing the illegal left turn, Jorbe motioned
Joseph to stop the car. Joseph stopped the car but
flashed his middle finger to Jorbe while doing so.
4.4.
Jorbe approached the car and used his cellphone
to record a video of Joseph. Jorbe asked Joseph to
repeat the dirty finger sign and this made Joseph angry.
4.5.
Joseph took Jorbes cellphone and threw it inside
his car. Jorbe attempted to retrieve his cellphone but
Joseph grabbed Jobes collar.
4.6.
Upon grabbing Jorbes collar, Joseph started
driving the car while punching Jorbe at the same time.
Joseph punched Jorbe three (3) times.
4.7.
As a result of Joseph punching Jorbe three (3)
times, Jorbe was unable to perform his MMDA duties for
a period of ten (10) days and required medical
attendance for the same period.
EVIDENCE FOR THE DEFENSE
The lone witness for the defense, Accused Joseph
Russel Ingco, testified as follows:
4.8.
He is the owner of a blue Maserati Ghibli with
conduction number QQ0057.
3

4.9.
On November 27, 2014 he was driving along
Araneta Avenue approaching the corner of Quezon
Avenue.
4.10. He was about to make a left turn going to Quezon
Avenue when he realized the left turn was prohibited.
Instead of turning left, he went straight and made a Uturn further along the road to return to Quezon Avenue.
4.11. When he got back to Quezon Avenue, an MMDA
officer, later identified as Jorbe Adriatico, stopped him.
Joseph lowered the window on the drivers side of his
car and asked what the problem was. Jorbe told Joseph
the latter made an illegal left turn. Joseph argued he
didnt make a left turn and in fact made a U-turn farther
away.
4.12. Jorbe insisted Joseph made an illegal left turn and
even said that he had a video to prove it. Joseph got
angry because Jorbe was shouting and hurling curses at
him.
4.13. Instead of getting his license, Jorbe showed him
his cellphone with the video and put it near Josephs
face. Joseph got irritated and slapped away Jorbes hand
that was holding the cellphone.
4.14. After having his hand slapped away, Jorbe spat on
Joseph and cursed him some more. At this point, Jorbe
started punching Joseph repeatedly. Joseph panicked
and started the car to avoid Jorbes punches. Joseph
drove the car at a slow pace to prevent Jorbe from
being dragged along.
V.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
I.
THE
LOWER
COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED
IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE
OF THE PROSECUTION AND DISREGARDING THE
DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
VI.
ARGUMENTS

In support of the following assigned errors:

I.
THE
LOWER
COURT
GRAVELY
ERRED
IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE
CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II.
THE LOWER COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING
FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE EVIDENCE
OF THE PROSECUTION AND DISREGARDING THE
DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
We beg leave to discuss jointly the two (2) assigned errors
they being interrelated with each other.
The Plaintiff was not able to prove that
he suffered injuries to the extent
that it would be punishable under
the crime of Less Serious Physical Injuries
6.1. It is important to note that in order that an injury
inflicted may be punished under the crime of Less
Physical Injuries under the Revised Penal Code, the
offended party must be incapacitated for ten days or
more (but not more than 30 days), or he must have
needed medical attendance for the same period of time. 1
6.2. It is important to note that the law includes two
subdivisions, dealing with (1) the inability for work, and
(2) the necessity for medical attendance. 2
6.3. Without proof that the offended party was unable to
work or that he needed medical attendance for the period
prescribed by the law, the injury complained of cannot be
punished under the crime of Less Physical Injuries.
6.4. Plaintiff in this case has not submitted any evidence
such as a medical certificate duly executed by an
authorized medical practitioner to prove that he has
suffered injuries which required medical attendance for a
period of 10 days or more (but not more than 30 days) or
which incapacitated him from labor for the same period of
time.
6.5. It is quite unbelievable that an alleged fistic blow on
the face of the Plaintiff would cause such degree of injury.
6.6. Without proof submitted by the Prosecution, Plaintiff
cannot be presumed to have suffered such extent of
1 Article 265, Revised Penal Code; Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code:
Criminal Law - Book Two (18th ed. 2012)
2 U.S. v. Trinidad, 4 Phil. 152; People v. Olavides, C.A., 40 O.G., Supp. 4,8
5

injuries. Evidence to prove the degree of injuries suffered

by the Plaintiff is essential for the prosecution of the
crime herein alleged.
6.7. Defendant therefore submits that the lower court erred
in convicting the accused of the crime of less serious
physical injuries as there was no proof that the Plaintiff
did suffer the injuries complained of.

The Accused did not give

Plaintiff a fistic blow on his face
6.8. The Accused stands by his testimony that he never
gave Plaintiff a fistic blow on his face. In fact, it was
Plaintiff that kept on punching the Accused. It was
because Plaintiff was punching him that the Accused
panicked and started the car to avoid Plaintiffs punches.
6.9. Accused drove the car at a slow pace to prevent
Plaintiff from being dragged along. However, the Accused
admits that Plaintiff was still dragged by the car despite
Accused's precaution. It is important to note that upon
realizing that the Plaintiff was being dragged by the car,
the Accused stopped the car.
6.10.If Plaintiff did suffer from any injury due to the incident,
the injuries might have been caused by his being dragged
by the car, contrary to Plaintiff's testimony that it was
caused by Accused's fistic blow on his face. However, the
Accused never intended that Plaintiff be dragged nor did
he ever intend to cause harm to the Plaintiff.
The Accused's act of starting the car
and driving it along the road was due
to self-defense
6.11.It is important to note that the Accused merely started
his car and drove it along the road because he panicked
and he wanted to escape from Plaintiff, as Plaintiff kept
on punching him and cursed at him.
6.12.It was never the intention of the Accused to inflict
injuries on the Plaintiff along the process. In fact, instead
of fighting with the Plaintiff and punching him as well,
Accused chose to escape and stay away from Plaintiff
instead.
6.13.According to Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code,
anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights do not
incur any criminal liability as long as the following
circumstances occur:
a. unlawful aggression;
b. reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it; and
c. lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself
6.14.All of the circumstances are present in this case. First,
there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the
Plaintiff when he unlawfully stopped the car of the
Accused and accused him of committing a traffic
7

violation, and when Plaintiff suddenly started cursing at

the Accused and punching him for no reason. Second, the
means employed by the Accused to prevent Plaintiff from
hurting him was necessary. He just chose to escape from
the Plaintiff, although there was an accident when the
Plaintiff got dragged along. Upon realizing that the
Plaintiff was being dragged, the Accused stopped his car
to prevent Plaintiff from getting injured. Third, there was
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the Accused.
In fact, it was the Plaintiff who kept on provoking the
Accused.
6.15.Because of all these, the Accused must not incur any
criminal liability for the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff.
When the Accused acts in complete self-defense, there is
no crime committed.
The court erred in merely relying
on the evidence of the Prosecution
and in disregarding the evidence
submitted by the Defense
6.16.In coming up with its decision, the lower court gave full
credence on the testimony of the Plaintiff, and
disregarded the testimony and other evidence submitted
by the Accused.
6.17.It is important to note that the Prosecution merely
offered the uncorroborated testimony of the Plaintiff and
a video allegedly taken by a CCTV posted near the place
of the incident, nothing more.
6.18.It must be emphasized that the video on the CCTV was
not authenticated. Thus, it should not have been given
weight and credence by the court when it came up with
its decision.
6.19.During trial, Accused was able to present his testimony
as well as the testimonies of other disinterested persons
in the case to show that the Plaintiff is known for coming
up with schemes to extort money on motor vehicle
owners.
6.20.The Defense acknowledges the well-settled rule that
the testimony of only one witness may be sufficient to
support a conviction if it convinces the court beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime
charged.
6.21.However,
testimony of
There is a
commission

in this case, there

the sole witness that
serious dispute as
of the crime since
8

are aspects of the

do not inspire belief.
to the fact of the
all we have is the

uncorroborated testimony of one witness who is the

Plaintiff in this case.
6.22.According to the 1987 Constitution, the constitutional
presumption of innocence imposes upon the Court the
duty to ascertain in every case that no person is made to
answer for a crime without proof of his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.3
6.23.To overcome this constitutional presumption and to
justify a criminal conviction, there must exist in the
record, "that degree of proof which produces conviction in
an unprejudiced mind."4 Such is absent in this case.
VII.
CONCLUSION
7.1.
Accused is reiterating his contention that the
Municipal Trial Court committed error in finding him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt to the crime of Less
Serious Physical Injuries defined and penalized under
Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code.
VIII.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most
respectfully prayed to this honorable court that the decision
of the Municipal Trial Court, Branch 10, Quezon City, be
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and a new one be rendered
ACQUITTING the accused-appellant of the crime charged.
Other
reliefs,
just
and
equitable
circumstances, are likewise prayed for.
Makati City for Quezon City, 11 January 2015.

Constitution, Article III, Sec. 14 (2).

4 Rule 133, Sec. 2; Rule 131, Sec. 2.
3

under

the

ALPHA LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Accused-Appellant
23rd Floor Multinational
Bancorporation Centre
6805 Ayala Avenue, Makati
City
By:
JASON RUDOLF C. ARTECHE
PTR# 00001; 6-19-2014;
Makati City
IBP # 99998; Lifetime;
Makati City Chapter
Rolly of Attorneys # 11111
MCLE # 123123

Copy Furnished:
Hon. Judge Arturo Pano
Municipal Trial Court Branch 10
Quezon City
Office of the City Prosecutor
Quezon City

10